Pulaski & Middleman, LLC v. Google, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the plaintiffs proposed alternative method of restitution was sufficient for the purpose of class certification purposes because it “measure[d] the monetary loss ‘resulting from the particular injury’ alleged”
• holding that damages calculations for Rule 23(b)(3) classes do not defeat 25 predominance
• holding that Comcast did not disturb Yokoyama
• holding that Comcast did not disturb Yokoyama
• reversing denial of class certification in part because proposed method of calculating damages was not arbitrary, but targeted to remedying the alleged unfair practice and harm
• instructing district courts to inquire whether the 8 proposed damages model translates “legal theory of the harmful event into an analysis 9 of the economic impact of that event.” (emphasis omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).